PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
AUCP.L vs. ISLN.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

AUCP.L vs. ISLN.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) and iShares Physical Silver ETC (ISLN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

AUCP.L is traded in GBp, while ISLN.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ISLN.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AUCP.L achieves a -0.57% return, which is significantly lower than ISLN.L's 2.81% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with AUCP.L having a 16.41% annualized return and ISLN.L not far ahead at 16.65%.


AUCP.L

1D
0.71%
1M
-0.45%
YTD
-0.57%
6M
4.66%
1Y
65.77%
3Y*
46.06%
5Y*
23.58%
10Y*
16.41%

ISLN.L

1D
0.00%
1M
0.56%
YTD
2.81%
6M
27.61%
1Y
114.86%
3Y*
42.09%
5Y*
22.50%
10Y*
16.65%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AUCP.L vs. ISLN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
AUCP.L
L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF
-0.57%161.99%20.20%8.69%-4.04%-8.91%17.60%39.53%-5.63%0.57%
ISLN.L
iShares Physical Silver ETC
3.28%129.95%23.24%-5.73%15.69%-12.02%41.57%11.93%-3.35%-5.28%

Correlation

The correlation between AUCP.L and ISLN.L is 0.74, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.74

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.70

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.69

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.70

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 13, 2011

0.67

The correlation between AUCP.L and ISLN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

AUCP.L vs. ISLN.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
AUCP.L
ISLN.L

Basic Materials

100.0%
6.6%

Communication Services

-

0.4%

Consumer Cyclical

-

2.3%

Consumer Defensive

-

0.4%

Energy

-

2.9%

Financial Services

-

2.5%

Healthcare

-

5.9%

Industrials

-

6.0%

Real Estate

-

3.5%

Technology

-

2.8%

Utilities

-

2.0%

Basic Materials

AUCP.L
100.0%
ISLN.L
6.6%

Communication Services

AUCP.L

-

ISLN.L
0.4%

Consumer Cyclical

AUCP.L

-

ISLN.L
2.3%

Consumer Defensive

AUCP.L

-

ISLN.L
0.4%

Energy

AUCP.L

-

ISLN.L
2.9%

Financial Services

AUCP.L

-

ISLN.L
2.5%

Healthcare

AUCP.L

-

ISLN.L
5.9%

Industrials

AUCP.L

-

ISLN.L
6.0%

Real Estate

AUCP.L

-

ISLN.L
3.5%

Technology

AUCP.L

-

ISLN.L
2.8%

Utilities

AUCP.L

-

ISLN.L
2.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

AUCP.L vs. ISLN.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AUCP.L
AUCP.L Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
AUCP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4343
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
Martin Ratio Rank

ISLN.L
ISLN.L Risk / Return Rank: 5252
Overall Rank
ISLN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ISLN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
ISLN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
ISLN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
ISLN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AUCP.L vs. ISLN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) and iShares Physical Silver ETC (ISLN.L). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.


AUCP.LISLN.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.56

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.43

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.36

-0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.21

2.94

-0.73

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.70

6.45

-0.76

AUCP.L vs. ISLN.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AUCP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is comparable to the ISLN.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUCP.L and ISLN.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


AUCP.LISLN.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.49

2.05

-0.56

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.65

0.66

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.47

0.55

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.26

0.17

+0.10

Drawdowns

AUCP.L vs. ISLN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AUCP.L drawdown since its inception was -77.57%, which is greater than ISLN.L's maximum drawdown of -69.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUCP.L and ISLN.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AUCP.LISLN.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-77.57%

-69.93%

-7.64%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-29.56%

-38.79%

+9.23%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.56%

-38.79%

+9.23%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-39.38%

-38.79%

-0.59%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.72%

-38.79%

-6.93%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-25.67%

-33.94%

+8.27%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-35.74%

-45.59%

+9.85%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

11.51%

17.73%

-6.22%

Volatility

AUCP.L vs. ISLN.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) is 13.97%, while iShares Physical Silver ETC (ISLN.L) has a volatility of 17.01%. This indicates that AUCP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ISLN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AUCP.LISLN.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.97%

17.01%

-3.04%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

34.06%

52.85%

-18.79%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

43.95%

55.64%

-11.69%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

35.99%

33.87%

+2.12%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

34.66%

30.10%

+4.56%

AUCP.L vs. ISLN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

AUCP.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than ISLN.L's 0.20% expense ratio.


Dividends

AUCP.L vs. ISLN.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither AUCP.L nor ISLN.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


AUCP.L and ISLN.L have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ISLN.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ISLN.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for AUCP.L.

AUCP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while ISLN.L is Silver. AUCP.L tracks STOXX Global Gold Miners, while ISLN.L tracks LBMA Silver Price. They also come from different issuers: Legal & General and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for AUCP.L and 0.20% for ISLN.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AUCP.L and ISLN.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer